About Us

24-12-2002, 02:10 AM

(Lloyd Parker) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Larry Harrell) wrote:

Nobody seems to mention that a huge part of the USFS timber program
is
fuels management and those aren't designed to make money. They're
supposed to reduce fuels with some selling of volume to help offset
the cost.

No, just add in the costs of road building and maintenance alone, and
this exceeds what the timber companies pay.

Road building has been de-emphasized in the last 10 years and
purchasers of sales and other projects pay out of their own pockets
(of course, their bids reflect that, too). Factor into the equation
that "regular road maitenance" HAS to be done on USFS roads every so
many years so, that is a fixed cost. If we can get the logger to fix
the roads AND accomplish the fuels reduction, isn't that a good thing?

Also, If the USFS didn't have to meet all those NEPA
guidelines, public opinion, and a multitude of local, regional, state
and Federal laws, just like private industry,

Huh? Sure, exempt them from minimum wage and safety rules too, I
guess. Your comment makes no sense.

I didn't propose waiving all those restrictions, just showing people
the contrast between private and Federal forestry. Those are the
people who continue to complain about "below cost" timber sales. A
full analysis needs to be done, along with accurate and dependable
financial reporting (fat chance G ), to be able to show real world
benefits to USFS projects.

then maybe we'd make a
profit, Fred. Sure, there's plenty of bureaucratic red tape and
inefficiency but, what is asked of us is considerable. Private
forestry has no comparison to the Federal forestry world.

"Corporate Interests" want that steady supply of small logs that will
result from thinning programs soon to be mandated by Congress.
Loggers
want to go to work.

90% of logging is already on private lands.

But, OUR forests NEED the work done in them!!

People want to be safe from fires.

They shouldn't build homes that close to forests then. It's like the
people who build on the beach and then a hurricane destroys their
home. Yet they rebuild on the beach.

So, let's move huge populations into underground bunkers somewhere in
Kansas and provide a safe enivironment for millions to live (snicker,
snicker).

The forests
need to be healthier, drought resistant and fire resistant.

I notice you didn't say they need to be natural. Why?

Yes, they do! And, they sure as hell aren't now! If we manage our
forests back into a more natural state, providing sensible thinning to
reach a state of drought resistance and fire resistance, we can
restore old growth to our forest eco-systems. Fires, insects and
drought all impact our overstocked western forests and
"preservationists" say it's a natural thing for millions of acres to
catastrophically burn.

"Management", as opposed to "preservationism" will get our forests
resored much quicker than "Mother Nature", as she works on very long
cycles without man's intervention.

Plus, how can we have a "natural" forests without excluding the very
significant man-caused fires? It would be fine for "Mother Nature" to
"re-balance" forests by catastrophic fire if we had hundreds and
thousands of years without man's intervention and impacts. We created
those unnatural conditions through bad logging, fire suppression and,
recently, through "preservationism". It's up to us to correct that
unnatural conditions and restore our forests to fully functioning
eco-systems.

Larry eco-forestry rules!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Norseman	alt.forestry	0	23-12-2002 06:35 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	rick etter	alt.forestry	0	23-12-2002 12:59 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Fred Elbel	alt.forestry	0	23-12-2002 12:25 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Larry Harrell	alt.forestry	0	22-12-2002 05:16 AM
Debunking the "more trees" lie once again (was Creationist Limbaugh doesn't unders	Fred Elbel	alt.forestry	0	21-12-2002 05:15 PM

Menu

About Us